Sanjiva:
> Hmm. As was discussed in Rennes, WSDL 1.1's <service> element
> had no meaningful semantics and we wanted to provide some valuable
> semantics.
That might be the case, but replacing it with something like targetResource
isn't too sensible because it isn't idiot proof.
> Why bother with all this pain with removing message etc.? I
> have a better idea - let's go back to WSDL 1.1 and declare victory!
There is a lot to be said for that :-) But seriously, I think some of the
simplifications are worthwhile (like removing message) and others are
unstoppable but not harmful except to duffers (like attributes).
Of course if <service> in 1.1 had no meaningful semantics, we could apply
arbitrary semantics to it in 1.2 - eg if two interfaces appear in the same
<service> declaration, they are assumed to be controlled by the same
administrative domain.
Jim